You can subscribe to this list here.
| 2003 |
Jan
|
Feb
|
Mar
|
Apr
|
May
|
Jun
|
Jul
|
Aug
|
Sep
|
Oct
(1) |
Nov
(33) |
Dec
(20) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2004 |
Jan
(7) |
Feb
(44) |
Mar
(51) |
Apr
(43) |
May
(43) |
Jun
(36) |
Jul
(61) |
Aug
(44) |
Sep
(25) |
Oct
(82) |
Nov
(97) |
Dec
(47) |
| 2005 |
Jan
(77) |
Feb
(143) |
Mar
(42) |
Apr
(31) |
May
(93) |
Jun
(93) |
Jul
(35) |
Aug
(78) |
Sep
(56) |
Oct
(44) |
Nov
(72) |
Dec
(75) |
| 2006 |
Jan
(116) |
Feb
(99) |
Mar
(181) |
Apr
(171) |
May
(112) |
Jun
(86) |
Jul
(91) |
Aug
(111) |
Sep
(77) |
Oct
(72) |
Nov
(57) |
Dec
(51) |
| 2007 |
Jan
(64) |
Feb
(116) |
Mar
(70) |
Apr
(74) |
May
(53) |
Jun
(40) |
Jul
(519) |
Aug
(151) |
Sep
(132) |
Oct
(74) |
Nov
(282) |
Dec
(190) |
| 2008 |
Jan
(141) |
Feb
(67) |
Mar
(69) |
Apr
(96) |
May
(227) |
Jun
(404) |
Jul
(399) |
Aug
(96) |
Sep
(120) |
Oct
(205) |
Nov
(126) |
Dec
(261) |
| 2009 |
Jan
(136) |
Feb
(136) |
Mar
(119) |
Apr
(124) |
May
(155) |
Jun
(98) |
Jul
(136) |
Aug
(292) |
Sep
(174) |
Oct
(126) |
Nov
(126) |
Dec
(79) |
| 2010 |
Jan
(109) |
Feb
(83) |
Mar
(139) |
Apr
(91) |
May
(79) |
Jun
(164) |
Jul
(184) |
Aug
(146) |
Sep
(163) |
Oct
(128) |
Nov
(70) |
Dec
(73) |
| 2011 |
Jan
(235) |
Feb
(165) |
Mar
(147) |
Apr
(86) |
May
(74) |
Jun
(118) |
Jul
(65) |
Aug
(75) |
Sep
(162) |
Oct
(94) |
Nov
(48) |
Dec
(44) |
| 2012 |
Jan
(49) |
Feb
(40) |
Mar
(88) |
Apr
(35) |
May
(52) |
Jun
(69) |
Jul
(90) |
Aug
(123) |
Sep
(112) |
Oct
(120) |
Nov
(105) |
Dec
(116) |
| 2013 |
Jan
(76) |
Feb
(26) |
Mar
(78) |
Apr
(43) |
May
(61) |
Jun
(53) |
Jul
(147) |
Aug
(85) |
Sep
(83) |
Oct
(122) |
Nov
(18) |
Dec
(27) |
| 2014 |
Jan
(58) |
Feb
(25) |
Mar
(49) |
Apr
(17) |
May
(29) |
Jun
(39) |
Jul
(53) |
Aug
(52) |
Sep
(35) |
Oct
(47) |
Nov
(110) |
Dec
(27) |
| 2015 |
Jan
(50) |
Feb
(93) |
Mar
(96) |
Apr
(30) |
May
(55) |
Jun
(83) |
Jul
(44) |
Aug
(8) |
Sep
(5) |
Oct
|
Nov
(1) |
Dec
(1) |
| 2016 |
Jan
|
Feb
|
Mar
(1) |
Apr
|
May
|
Jun
(2) |
Jul
|
Aug
(3) |
Sep
(1) |
Oct
(3) |
Nov
|
Dec
|
| 2017 |
Jan
|
Feb
(5) |
Mar
|
Apr
|
May
|
Jun
|
Jul
(3) |
Aug
|
Sep
(7) |
Oct
|
Nov
|
Dec
|
| 2018 |
Jan
|
Feb
|
Mar
|
Apr
|
May
|
Jun
|
Jul
(2) |
Aug
|
Sep
|
Oct
|
Nov
|
Dec
|
| S | M | T | W | T | F | S |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
1
(4) |
2
(4) |
3
(13) |
4
(4) |
5
(1) |
6
(5) |
7
(5) |
|
8
(6) |
9
(20) |
10
(1) |
11
|
12
(11) |
13
(4) |
14
(2) |
|
15
(1) |
16
(1) |
17
(4) |
18
(5) |
19
(5) |
20
|
21
(1) |
|
22
(1) |
23
(2) |
24
|
25
(6) |
26
(1) |
27
|
28
|
|
29
(7) |
30
(12) |
|
|
|
|
|
You are right Francisco. I was misinterpreting, and probably not having an "x" is not an issue. On Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 1:25 PM, Francisco de la Peña < del...@lp...> wrote: > Hi Gökhan, > > I think that we are understanding differently the notation (what would mean > that it is indeed confusing). For me 1e-10+3.207e-5 means: "to get your > value read the figure from the axis, multiply it by 1e-10 and add 3.207e-5". > The source of the confusion could be a missing "x" in front of 1e-10. > Anyway the patch that I have submitted is not related to this problem, it > only affects the way the offset is calculated, not the way it is displayed. > I just tested an unmodified version of matplotlib and the "x" is not > displayed there neither. The difference that the patch makes is that instead > of 4x1e-8+2.995e-5 you get 99x1e-8+2.9e-5 that I think it is easier to > read. In addition, if the number of significant figures in the axis range > changes it takes it into account so the offset becomes human friendly for > all the axis values. > > Cheers, > > Francisco > > 2009年11月17日 Gökhan Sever <gok...@gm...> > > >> >> On Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 4:29 AM, Francisco de la Peña < >> del...@lp...> wrote: >> >>> Hi Gökhan, >>> >>> I tried your example and I couldn't find anything wrong with the offset >>> there. However, I agree that this particular mixture of scientific notation >>> and offset looks confusing. Maybe in that case it will be better to write: >>> x1e-10+320700e-10 . Is it what you mean? >>> >> >> I think this could be better presented collecting the base terms under the >> same exponent (i.e 320701e-10 and further 32e-6) Doesn't this look simpler? >> >> >> >>> >>> Cheers, >>> >>> Francisco >>> >>> El 17 de noviembre de 2009 00:58, Gökhan Sever <gok...@gm...>escribió: >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> 2009年11月15日 Francisco Javier de la Peña <del...@lp...> >>>> >>>> Hi, >>>>> >>>>> I find it difficult to read the values of an axis when the offset is >>>>> active. The problem is that many time I find myself doing calculations like >>>>> -1.2345e2-0.048 to find out the value of the tick. I send enclosed a patch >>>>> and a test file to, in my opinion, improve the readability of the ticks with >>>>> an offset. >>>>> >>>>> Cheers, >>>>> >>>>> Francisco >>>>> >>>> >>>> Hi Francisco, >>>> >>>> Could you try this simple case ? >>>> >>>> I[6]: a = np.linspace(0.00002, 0.00005, num=9348) >>>> >>>> I[7]: plot(a) >>>> >>>> Still ticks produce mingled values. Like 1e-10+3.207e-5 after some >>>> zooming in. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>> Let Crystal Reports handle the reporting - Free Crystal Reports 2008 >>>>> 30-Day >>>>> trial. Simplify your report design, integration and deployment - and >>>>> focus on >>>>> what you do best, core application coding. Discover what's new with >>>>> Crystal Reports now. http://p.sf.net/sfu/bobj-july >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Matplotlib-devel mailing list >>>>> Mat...@li... >>>>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/matplotlib-devel >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Gökhan >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> This message has been scanned for viruses and >>>> dangerous content by *MailScanner* <http://www.mailscanner.info/>, and >>>> is >>>> believed to be clean. >>>> >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> Gökhan >> >> -- >> This message has been scanned for viruses and >> dangerous content by *MailScanner* <http://www.mailscanner.info/>, and is >> >> believed to be clean. >> > > -- Gökhan
Hi Gökhan, I think that we are understanding differently the notation (what would mean that it is indeed confusing). For me 1e-10+3.207e-5 means: "to get your value read the figure from the axis, multiply it by 1e-10 and add 3.207e-5". The source of the confusion could be a missing "x" in front of 1e-10. Anyway the patch that I have submitted is not related to this problem, it only affects the way the offset is calculated, not the way it is displayed. I just tested an unmodified version of matplotlib and the "x" is not displayed there neither. The difference that the patch makes is that instead of 4x1e-8+2.995e-5 you get 99x1e-8+2.9e-5 that I think it is easier to read. In addition, if the number of significant figures in the axis range changes it takes it into account so the offset becomes human friendly for all the axis values. Cheers, Francisco 2009年11月17日 Gökhan Sever <gok...@gm...> > > > On Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 4:29 AM, Francisco de la Peña < > del...@lp...> wrote: > >> Hi Gökhan, >> >> I tried your example and I couldn't find anything wrong with the offset >> there. However, I agree that this particular mixture of scientific notation >> and offset looks confusing. Maybe in that case it will be better to write: >> x1e-10+320700e-10 . Is it what you mean? >> > > I think this could be better presented collecting the base terms under the > same exponent (i.e 320701e-10 and further 32e-6) Doesn't this look simpler? > > > >> >> Cheers, >> >> Francisco >> >> El 17 de noviembre de 2009 00:58, Gökhan Sever <gok...@gm...>escribió: >> >>> >>> >>> 2009年11月15日 Francisco Javier de la Peña <del...@lp...> >>> >>> Hi, >>>> >>>> I find it difficult to read the values of an axis when the offset is >>>> active. The problem is that many time I find myself doing calculations like >>>> -1.2345e2-0.048 to find out the value of the tick. I send enclosed a patch >>>> and a test file to, in my opinion, improve the readability of the ticks with >>>> an offset. >>>> >>>> Cheers, >>>> >>>> Francisco >>>> >>> >>> Hi Francisco, >>> >>> Could you try this simple case ? >>> >>> I[6]: a = np.linspace(0.00002, 0.00005, num=9348) >>> >>> I[7]: plot(a) >>> >>> Still ticks produce mingled values. Like 1e-10+3.207e-5 after some >>> zooming in. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> >>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>> Let Crystal Reports handle the reporting - Free Crystal Reports 2008 >>>> 30-Day >>>> trial. Simplify your report design, integration and deployment - and >>>> focus on >>>> what you do best, core application coding. Discover what's new with >>>> Crystal Reports now. http://p.sf.net/sfu/bobj-july >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Matplotlib-devel mailing list >>>> Mat...@li... >>>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/matplotlib-devel >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Gökhan >>> >>> >>> -- >>> This message has been scanned for viruses and >>> dangerous content by *MailScanner* <http://www.mailscanner.info/>, and >>> is >>> believed to be clean. >>> >> >> > > > -- > Gökhan > > -- > This message has been scanned for viruses and > dangerous content by *MailScanner* <http://www.mailscanner.info/>, and is > believed to be clean. >
On Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 4:29 AM, Francisco de la Peña < del...@lp...> wrote: > Hi Gökhan, > > I tried your example and I couldn't find anything wrong with the offset > there. However, I agree that this particular mixture of scientific notation > and offset looks confusing. Maybe in that case it will be better to write: > x1e-10+320700e-10 . Is it what you mean? > I think this could be better presented collecting the base terms under the same exponent (i.e 320701e-10 and further 32e-6) Doesn't this look simpler? > > Cheers, > > Francisco > > El 17 de noviembre de 2009 00:58, Gökhan Sever <gok...@gm...>escribió: > >> >> >> 2009年11月15日 Francisco Javier de la Peña <del...@lp...> >> >> Hi, >>> >>> I find it difficult to read the values of an axis when the offset is >>> active. The problem is that many time I find myself doing calculations like >>> -1.2345e2-0.048 to find out the value of the tick. I send enclosed a patch >>> and a test file to, in my opinion, improve the readability of the ticks with >>> an offset. >>> >>> Cheers, >>> >>> Francisco >>> >> >> Hi Francisco, >> >> Could you try this simple case ? >> >> I[6]: a = np.linspace(0.00002, 0.00005, num=9348) >> >> I[7]: plot(a) >> >> Still ticks produce mingled values. Like 1e-10+3.207e-5 after some zooming >> in. >> >> >> >> >>> >>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>> Let Crystal Reports handle the reporting - Free Crystal Reports 2008 >>> 30-Day >>> trial. Simplify your report design, integration and deployment - and >>> focus on >>> what you do best, core application coding. Discover what's new with >>> Crystal Reports now. http://p.sf.net/sfu/bobj-july >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Matplotlib-devel mailing list >>> Mat...@li... >>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/matplotlib-devel >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> Gökhan >> >> >> -- >> This message has been scanned for viruses and >> dangerous content by *MailScanner* <http://www.mailscanner.info/>, and is >> >> believed to be clean. >> > > -- Gökhan
Hi Gökhan, I tried your example and I couldn't find anything wrong with the offset there. However, I agree that this particular mixture of scientific notation and offset looks confusing. Maybe in that case it will be better to write: x1e-10+320700e-10 . Is it what you mean? Cheers, Francisco El 17 de noviembre de 2009 00:58, Gökhan Sever <gok...@gm...>escribió: > > > 2009年11月15日 Francisco Javier de la Peña <del...@lp...> > > Hi, >> >> I find it difficult to read the values of an axis when the offset is >> active. The problem is that many time I find myself doing calculations like >> -1.2345e2-0.048 to find out the value of the tick. I send enclosed a patch >> and a test file to, in my opinion, improve the readability of the ticks with >> an offset. >> >> Cheers, >> >> Francisco >> > > Hi Francisco, > > Could you try this simple case ? > > I[6]: a = np.linspace(0.00002, 0.00005, num=9348) > > I[7]: plot(a) > > Still ticks produce mingled values. Like 1e-10+3.207e-5 after some zooming > in. > > > > >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> Let Crystal Reports handle the reporting - Free Crystal Reports 2008 >> 30-Day >> trial. Simplify your report design, integration and deployment - and focus >> on >> what you do best, core application coding. Discover what's new with >> Crystal Reports now. http://p.sf.net/sfu/bobj-july >> _______________________________________________ >> Matplotlib-devel mailing list >> Mat...@li... >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/matplotlib-devel >> >> > > > -- > Gökhan > > > -- > This message has been scanned for viruses and > dangerous content by *MailScanner* <http://www.mailscanner.info/>, and is > believed to be clean. >